Memory Alpha:Featured article nominations/Archive
An archive for Nominations that didn't make it for some reason. You can rewrite the articles, changing them on the points that were the main criteria for not featuring them, and then renominate them. When you do, shortly include the reasons it wasn't nominated the last time, and leave the archive entry standing here. For previous year nominations see the 2004 and 2005 archives. ---- Eugenics Wars (3/29/07) * I was amazed by this article! An unbelievably extensive resource regarding a subject not often touched upon in Trek; I was expecting a small page, possibly even a stub, but was extremely pleased to find all the information here, well written and presented. I'm quite impressed! (Obviously, it's not a self-nomination and I had no hand in creating this awesome page!) --Defiant 22:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC) *Looks good. Possible further additions might be an "Appearances" subsection and/or another relevant image (if such exists). Neither is absolutely necessary, though... Support. -- Cid Highwind 17:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC) *'Comment' I have a couple of issues/questions before I can vote on this. First, there's at least one point in the article that uses an image as a direct reference. Is that standard MA style or should it reference the episode instead? Second, I do think an "Appearances" or "References" list would be good, and I also think that an Apocrypha section at least listing the numerous novels that reference this could be helpful. Logan 5 21:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC) :* That production image is from the coinciding ep ref, but the reference is visual and best explained via the link. Im not sure I understand the need for an appearances section, as unlike the appearances section on the Galaxy class page, the Eugenics Wars was never shown, therefore never truely appeared. Additionally, I do not understand the need for a References section when all the references are incited in the article. --Alan del Beccio 21:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC) *'Comment': Looks good to me too. It would be nice, and/or interesting, to see if we could incorporate McCoy's line from : "The infection resembles one developed by Earth during their bacteriological warfare experiments in the 1990s. Hard to believe we were once foolish enough to play around with that." While clearly it wasn't a Eugenics Wars reference, per se, it did apparently occur during the same time period, and undoubtedly had some sort of impact on Earth at that very time. Afterall, the article does contain the following, and somewhat equally unrelated reference from : "As the wars raged and many areas were devastated, others (including those of the United States of America) remained largely unaffected." Also perhaps include this image, as it was from that era as well, and quite frankly there isn't a whole lot of visual references to go with this article, otherwise. --Alan del Beccio 03:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC) * First let me apologies for being a killjoy, but I disagree. While the article does have merit with it's use of all 5 series, the ramped speculation on the bottom destroys the articles good intentions. The speculation is full of fan theories, based off nothing but hope. --TOSrules 09:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC) * Comment: I must disagree with the disagreement presented above... well, sort of. I really don't think the background hurts the article, it is merely trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together, as it were, by combining facts from various series to explain some apparent inconsistencies. That said, however, the speculation in that section may be a bit too much. For example, "Some fans have speculated that, since real life history does not support the existence of the Eugenics Wars, the Star Trek universe takes place in a parallel reality, in which case, conflicts with factual events would be moot." Is this really needed? Do we need to point out to fans what some fans think, or can we just allow them to make up their own mind? In any case, the background probably could use some polishing and tightening. I don't really think that should be enough to keep it from being featured, though, since the article, as a whole, looks pretty good to me. --From Andoria with Love 22:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC) ** Well I as I said I don't object to the article in theory, but I want to see the background section cleaned up. I see that is occurring. What I would like it to say is simply the conflicting data without having extensive theories trying to explain them. Background should only make us mindful of what different episodes and movies imply. Minor explanations can remain, like the 200 years from Space Seed being a bad estimate. Thank you for working on it. I didn't know where to start, but when it is boiled down I might try to restructure it. --TOSrules 05:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC) * Oppose. Usually I support FA nominations, even of controversial articles, but this one doesn't seem well organized enough. It's too short, lacks depth, and seems to have too narrow a focus. It would work better if tied into the Augments article. --Sheliakcorp talk 15:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC) * Archived-Alan del Beccio 06:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Leslie (3.29.07) This biography of the franchise's leading extra is suprisingly exhaustive and entertaining. It rivals the articles on James T. Kirk and Spock, which may not be inappropriate since the character appeared in the second TOS pilot, and remained throughout the series run. He has even been through death and life, just as his more illustrious crewmates have done. (I had nothing to do with this article, but it is interesting to note that the bulk of the work has been done by unnamed archivists identified only by IP numbers.) *'Support'. --GNDN 17:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC) *'Support'. Kyle C. Haight 13:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC) *'Oppose'. There sure is a lot of good info here, and I want to see this as a FA, but as is, I suggest a peer review. There are a lot of one-sentence paragraphs that should be merged, as well as some other copyediting. Good suggestion GNDN, let's work on improving this article. -Humuhumunukunukuāpuaʻa 16:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC) :*I'm new to this nomination business, but I do support -Humuhumunukunukuāpuaʻa's suggestion regarding peer review. If we go this route, should the nomination be tabled (or de-listed)? In the alternative, could peer review be conducted concurrently? --GNDN 02:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC) *'Support' as is. I love how he has relationships with other background characters. Cracks me up. Jaf 00:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Jaf *'Support' Very interesting article, lots of information. - Enzo Aquarius 15:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC) *'Strong support' The length, breadth, and depth of this article are the definition of Memory Alpha at its best. It's so good, it makes other articles look bad by comparison. -- StAkAr Karnak 18:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC) *'Support.' I'm amazed and impressed with such a thorough, serious approach to an extra. --Sasoriza 03:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC) *'Support' as well. I thought the nomination policy had been revised a while back to include "consensus" votes so that one hold-out in the face of strong community support wouldn't hold up a nomination. I know I was the hold-out on a few occassions, and the one opposing the hold-out on some others. Logan 5 00:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC) **'Comment'. I've already voted but it's time this nomination was resolved. I think there is definitely consensus on this article, but Humumu....'s objections seem to be concrete, fixable issues and not just a statement of preference. That said, I'm unclear as to the state of this nomination but it should be resolved one way or the other. Logan 5 04:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC) *'Support'. I'm really impressed that the initial work i did on this has been fleshed out so comprehensively. i felt crazy when i originally made a list of his 50+ appearances with uniform notes, this is greatly improved, and it was a group effort involving reg. users and anons alike. -- Captain M.K.B. 09:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC) *'Support'. It's quite well constructed for a minor character in Star Trek TOS. --Sheliakcorp talk 18:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC) :*'Comment': This thing has been up for nomination since late November and still has one opposition vote. This would generally mean that the nomination is deemed a failure, and the discussion archived (given our recently adopted stance that everyone agree, IIRC), but I haven't been following the peer review progress. Has the article been edited as per Humuhumunukunukuāpuaʻa's suggestions? Does Humuhumunukunukuāpuaʻa still oppose this article's nomination? Even so, do we still deem the nomination a failure? It does have overwhelming support, after all. --From Andoria with Love 22:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC) ::*'Comment' I still do oppose the article as a FA, as I feel it reads too haltingly; there are too many 2 sentence paragraphs that don't flow well that have never been addressed. I still recommend a Peer Review on this article, but not being too up on TOS and the character in general, I don't feel comfortable (or ambitious enough) to take on the task myself. That being said, I know I'm the one hold out, and wouldn't be angered if majority rules, despite my opinion that the article is not one of MA's best. -Humuhumunukunukuāpuaʻa (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC) * Archived-Alan del Beccio 06:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Thomas Riker (01/15/07) Self-nomination. I've spent a great deal of work on this article, and it was listed as peer-reviewed for 2 weeks without any feedback. I think this would make for an excellent Featured Article, and I welcome feedback and/or thoughts. -Humuhumunukunukuāpuaʻa 16:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC) *'Support'. Well done, to all who were involved with this article. :) --From Andoria with Love 20:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC) *'Oppose'. Haven't read the text itself yet, but what I immediately noticed was the bad image quality. All three images (Image:Thomas Riker (2369).jpg, Image:Thomas Riker.jpg, Image:Thomas Riker 2371.jpg) currently on the page show serious artifacts from either the bad VHS tape this was taken from, or from JPEG compression. If those exact images are to be kept, I would at least like to see them re-uploaded in better quality. Additionally, I could see one of the two similar "2369" images be removed from the sidebar and another one, perhaps showing Thomas with either Will, Deanna, or both, be added where appropriate. Regarding the sidebar in general, a possible "Featured article" might be a good start to think about what's really important to have on a character sidebar. Is "Created as duplicate" or "Affiliation:Maquis" really something we need to have on the sidebar (instead of in the text)? I'll leave another note once I read the article text itself. -- Cid Highwind 20:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC) :*'Comment': Noted regarding the graphics. I'll see if I can acquire better screenshots. I'm going to copy your comment and add it to the Talk:Thomas Riker/peerreview page. Any willing to assist in improving the article are advised to take the discussion there. -Humuhumunukunukuāpuaʻa 15:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC) ::*'Comment': I now read the whole text and left another note one the peer review page. If those two points are addressed, I'd support this nomination. -- Cid Highwind 13:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC) :::*'Comment': New versions of images have been uploaded, as has a new image of Tom and Deanna. I welcome futher comments/support. I have decided to leave both 2369 images in the sidebar, as other FA have set this precedent (Jean-Luc Picard, etc) -Humuhumunukunukuāpuaʻa 21:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC) *'Support', very thorough. -- Jaz talk 02:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Cardassian (01/15/07) Nominate: I personally put a lot of work into the article, cleaning it up and adding information and citations, prior to putting the page up in the peer review section. This page was in the peer review section for a couple of months, though no one commented on how to improve it there, slowly people have tweaked it to near perfection (there will always be room for improvement on any article). The article is very in-depth and covers just about everything you need or will want to know about the Cardassian people. I think this article is more than worthy of being a featured article. - Thot Prad 02:54, 23 December, 2006 (UTC) :I'd like to see a better choice of images here for this article to become featured. Currently, there are 5 portrait photos, and nothing else. While it makes sense to show Cardassians at different ages, I'm not sure a bland "listing" of female/male/young/old is the best way to go. I'd suggest to remove at least the Enabran Tain image (shows nothing of importance), move the remaining ones to appropriate sections (for example Mila to "Society and culture", which talks about aging), and then find other, relevant images. What about a Cardassian child? An image showing a cardassian court, general architecture, government buildings, technology? -- Cid Highwind 13:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC) :: I have added a ton of images and placed them throughout the article, including Cardassian orphans, Mila in the part which discusses age, the Cardassian Chief Archon, public trials, etc. If there are anymore changes necessary, let me know. - Thot Prad 15:24, 24 December, 2006 (UTC) *'Support' - I like the recent picture changes to this article. It goes quite indepth, features a great amount of information and is very informative. - Enzo Aquarius 13:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC) *'Support' - Finally had time to read through this, recent changes have moved this from good to great. Nice work. -Humuhumunukunukuāpuaʻa 22:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Borg history (11/29/06) All discussed issues concerning this article (structure, factual accuracy concerning the Hansens) seem to be solved so that it is now stating a well-structured, well-illustrated and comprehensive article on Borg history. --BlueMars 15:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC) *'Oppose'. Compared to Cardassian history, which has subsections like "Early History", "First Contact", "Cardassian Union", "First Republic", "Modern Empire", "Degeneration", "Restoration", "Membership in the Dominion", "Early Success", "Puppet Government & Rebellion", this reads like a timeline and summary of all Borg references and encounters. Its subsections clearly reflect this: "Origin", "21st Century", "22nd Century", "23rd Century", "24th Century." I think this needs to be addressed, possibly with a peer review. --Alan del Beccio 15:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC) *'Oppose'. It is a good start, but I agree w/Alan. I left comments on the article's talk page as well. Suggest a peer review. -Humuhumunukunukuāpuaʻa 16:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC) *'Oppose', basically for the reasons already stated above. I just checked several other "* history" articles, and most of them use a better system of subsections than this one - as Alan said, this shouldn't read like a timeline; instead, it should talk about specific important "phases" and "events" in Borg history. Speaking of which, some of the events listed on the page aren't even "Borg history" (like, for example, 2293), or aren't really "history-worthy" (like, for example, 2367). "Comprehensive", in my opinion, might sometimes mean to leave out facts that are more appropriate on other pages instead. Additionally, when restructuring this article, most of the separators should be removed, and eventually the rest of the formatting be checked. -- Cid Highwind 19:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC) *'Oppose' for the reasons stated above, and because the article has changed very little since when it failed a previous nomination. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC) *'Support'. I disagree with you guys, although I guess it might be too late to make a difference for this one. Having it split up by dates is just so darn practical. I'd hate to see this split into titles that we make up just for the purpose of making it look prettier. Jaf 13:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Jaf **Nomination failed and has been inactive for seven days. Archived. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC) Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan Self-nomination (for the most part). Recently updated the Summary, added images, wrote the Analysis section that details the movie's themes and motives, and created an extensive background information section that features the complete development of the film. Ottens 16:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC) *'Comment': The Background section is actually very good, but I'd go so far as to say the summary could be a little better, but I don't know if this complaint is anti-FA worthy. - AJ Halliwell 21:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC) ** Archived, no concensus after 40-some days. --Alan del Beccio 03:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC) Borg history (9/1/06) Although I did some work on it I don't see this as a self nomination (I only threw in some raw material), the article is simply to extensive for one person to write. After some time I have read the whole article once more and I like it. The changes still made at this time are mostly minor spelling issues but I don't see that as a problem for nominating this article. As far as I can see all the major Borg events are there, it reads well without going to much into non-Borg details. Lots of archivists polished this article into what it is now, a worthy candidate. Besides that, I have a week spot for those semi-artificial guys:) -- Q 09:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC) *''Neutral''. I'm not sure about the somewhat unusual format for a history page. All events are organized by year, rather than by "era" as all other history pages are, and I must say I prefer that. A more appropriate title for this page would be "Borg timeline". Ottens 09:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC) *'Oppose'. Aside from the format (which should at least be broken into centuries) and my own concern about the title this article isn't what I'd call stable. It's been modified several times in the past few months for various reasons. Actually most Borg articles tend to fluctuate more than others, I think, and for that reason I'd like to see how long this one lasts without major changes before we promote it to FA status. Logan 5 19:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC) *'Oppose.' I'd go so far as to say this page needs a pna or a pna-unformatted. It's no longer a history, it's a "Borg timeline." Also, is that first section that describes it as "the history of the Borg is vague and hearsay" cited? Cause things like this should be ambiguous from the in-universe POV. IE: When we don't know something, but characters In-Universe do/may, we should try to be ambiguous to show we don't but they do. If that made any sense. - AJ Halliwell 21:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC) *'Oppose', the sections read like a list of episode summaries rather than history blurbs. --Alan del Beccio 18:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Starfleet Operations (8/02/06) Well, Bfgreen added the "Featured Article Candidate" template (and therefore is responsible for the nomination, not me) to the article, but didn't put it here. Being the nice guy that I am, I've done it for him. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC) *'Oppose', as we don't really know what Starfleet Operations even is. I'll put up the first sentence of the article here: ::Starfleet Operations (also known as Fleet Operations or Fleet Ops) is a division of Starfleet based at Starfleet Headquarters in San Francisco, presumably the branch that oversees the day-to-day running of the fleet. :Presumadly. In other words, we are speculating. I also doubt the completeness of the current contents of the article. I am guessing that these names of people are from the dedication plaques. For one thing, shouldn't that fact be noted somewhere? For another, we have seen more dedication plaques than this, so where are the other names? :This article seems far from completion, and doesn't have a real definition of what it even is. This is not what I would consider among MA's best. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC) *'Oppose'. It's more of a list than an article, and lists do not make suitable candidates. As it is, it's nowhere close to being "one of the best examples of the Memory Alpha community's work". --From Andoria with Love 06:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC) *'Strong Oppose' This is a list, and I agree that it doesn't really say what it actually is; not exactly the clarity we're looking for in an FA. - AJ Halliwell 16:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC) **10 days, 3 oppose, no support, archived. - AJ Halliwell 16:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Worf (07/13/06) For the character with the single most Trek appearances this article is incredibly detailed and covers every aspect I can think of. It's got extensive quotes and background info, touches on all major relationships and assignments. I can't believe it hasn't been nominated before. Logan 5 17:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC) :Object. Despite being our longest article, it still is not complete. It needs more information on Worf's relationship with Ezri. -- Jaz talk 03:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC) ::Removed, 30 days, 1 vote opposed and less than 5 votes. - AJ Halliwell 04:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Julian Bashir, Secret Agent (07/10/06) Several people, including Defiant, Vedek Dukat, Weyoun and Excelsior, have done a good job on the page. Informative and well written. -- Tough Little Ship 22:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC) :Support - Article is well written and covers the topic throughly--AndreMcKay 22:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC) :Comment I could go either way on this one but before I vote I think that it could use a few more pics, and some editing. The paragraph that mentions Miles playing Felix, emphasizing "- yet again", doesn't work because there is no previous mention of his playing Felix. The emphasis doesn't have a precedent. I also think the article could relate the info in a fashion that doesn't emphasize one episode reference after another. Logan 5 23:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC) :Object. The article could be more comprehensive and better written. For example, the article doesn't even begin with placing the program into context in terms of when it was run. And like above, there is usage of "this time willingly" without a precedent section describing when it wasn't. A rewrite from a consistent point of view might help. And the title of the article itself is presumed by the article to be the title of the series of holonovels, but I do not believe that that has been established anywhere; I think it is simply a convenient way of describing them collectively. I also think that the title should be "Felix's Cold War Secret Agent Holonovels" or some such thing, though, to better describe it. So, a good editorial scrub and renaming would be good places to start fixing this one up. Aholland 04:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC) *'Oppose'. I think this article could have alot more. The 'gadgets' don't seem to be mentioned at all, such as (this is the only one I remember, but I think there were more) the shoe+pen=gun. I remember a sketch of this from somewhere that would make a great image for the background section. Also, the lone picture on the page is a close up shot of Bashir's head! Not exactly describing the entire program. Mention of his apartment with all the guns (or something that spun from around a bar, i repeat: I haven't seen this episode in quite some time) is missing as well. It could go more indepth (without seeming like an episode summary) in the Our Man Bashir episode, and any more details on the similarities to the 007 movies would make good background as well. This page certainly doesn't seem complete, whether lone featured-article status. - AJ Halliwell 12:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC) **44 days, 1 support, 2 objects, 1 comments. Failed to meet 5 vote minimum in days days. - AJ Halliwell 18:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC) Geordi La Forge (07/10/06) I have no idea why this article isn't featured. I helped sort it out and add credits. I feel that it's very concise, yet detailed, and exceedingly well organized. Any changes that would need to be made would undoubtedly be minor. --Werideatdusk :Oppose. The article is hardly complete--it still needs more information on the following subjects: his service on board the Enterprise-E (there is very few information about his involvement in the TNG movies), personal interests, relationships (there are no specialized sections detailing his relationships with the other TNG characters). Also, the article needs to be better organized; there are paragraphs about La Forge in alternate timelines in the main article, while they should be under "Alternate timelines", and the article's structure is very much alike to the Geordi La Forge page on wikipedia. Finally, I think the "Background information" section is not complete, possibly information about Burton's directing of episodes can be added. Ottens 11:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC) ::Comment... Burton's directing information belongs nowhere near the article. That's what his own article is for. -- Sulfur 11:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC) ::Comment. Possibly, his directing of TNG episodes featuring the character of La Forge had an effect on how the character was portrayed? I'm not a La Forge-expert, so I wouldn't know; I'm merely saying this is a possibility that needs to be examined. Ottens 12:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC) ::Comment. I don't think that the actor's other duties are relevant to one character he portrayed... in any case, I agree there should be more detail about his relationships with the other TNG characters, though he was not a huge component of that aspect of TNG... he hung around with Data but not a lot of focus was ever given to La Forge's friendships. There is not much information about the TNG movies, yes, but again, I don't know what other information there is to add. He had pretty minor roles in all four of the movies, except for his kidnapping in Generations which is covered well enough. The alternate timeline problems can be fixed immediately. Any other changes, I propose we get to them. This is a strong article. While it does need a bit of help, it's all minor. --Werideatdusk 05:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC) * Oppose - This article is definitely not "above and beyond the call of duty," in fact it looks like it was made so it just makes the call of duty. Looking over the article, 1.) All the movies (events of his life, episodes) seem to get a generic paragraph that describes the episode, and sometimes what he did, but not how it affected him or what ever. The paragraph for "Interface" for example just says "his mom went missing. He tried finding her. He didn't" basically! It should go on about how he tried to persuade the captain, talked to his family, the whole alien plot line! Speaking of family, I seem to remember a couple references to his family which are missing. ("Growing up starship to starships," or something to that extent.) Also, the article is not cited completely. Under "Engineering talents and specialties" it lists ST:FC as the only source, but I know they didn't mention La Forge working on a shuttlecraft in that movie. And as I already said, the movies seem to get more of a general overall summary than a listing of what he actually did. - AJ Halliwell 18:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC) **2 oppose, 2 comments, no supports. Not even the required 5 votes in a 10 day period. - AJ Halliwell 18:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC) Elite Force (comic) (07/04/06) Yes, another comic already. Was thinking about Peer Review, but seems like there's not much more to add. (but feel free to tell me I'm wrong) Indepth summary, while still being outweighed by background information and character descriptions. (The number of errors is particularly astonishing, as well as the Star Wars references.) I could see it as being one of those "complete, but not FA" articles, but I'd like to see what can happen. - AJ Halliwell 17:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC) :Strong support. Really well done. -- Jaz talk 23:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC) :Comment. I like this article and I'm inclined to support it. However I do wonder, given the huuuuuge number of possible comic articles, if we want to think about how high the bar should be set. This is by far one of the best of the current comics articles, but is it what we hope will be the best work of the community on comics articles in general? Logan 5 03:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC) ::Oppose. I just made a number of typographical corrections, but I'm going to guess there are others I missed. Also, some sentences seem to be missing words. Like: "The intelligence behind the Forge tells them to get out now, that he forges stolen material to make new, with the purpose of conquest of the entire galaxy." New what? Or the odd grammar of "Telsia, Alex and Chell find the entity, that claims the Tarlus will rule the galaxy, and he is doing their bidding." I guessed at one sentence with missing words, but since I've never read the comic it is hard for me to know what to put in. So . . . if this article is to represent the best of the best, it should at least have proper grammar and sentence construction. The content is very good, and it appears quite complete. But until it gets a good editorial scrub by someone who knows the comic, I suggest that it is not ready for featured status. After that, I'd be all for it. Aholland 06:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC) ::With the recent modifications by AJHalliwell and the other non-controversial edits that have taken place I Support the nomination. The article has what any synopsis article should have - comic or otherwise - for featured status: more than a blow-by-blow account, no matter how well written. Aholland 03:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC) :Comment. At moments like this I regret not to have a better understanding of the English language. (see the 'huge amount off' grammer corrects on articles I worked on) No offense, but to me the article reads very strange. Let me give you some examples. ...is fighting off the encroaching Borg drones with the help of his.... encroaching ? Is this correct when referring to someone instead of something ? '' Beissman, hitting Borg left and right and armed with two phasers, is...'' How does he do that ? Is he hitting Borg with his phasers of actually shooting them ? ...a bolt of energy knocks out several of the drones Afterward Foster tells them it was an I-MOD. Should there not be a referral as who fired the bolt ? Janeway begins to order that they start repairs until they can figure out where they are... Should 'that they' not be replaced by 'to' ? I find it a strange sentence. It looks like repairs are about to stop after Janeway finds out where they are. True ? Scans show another ship is approaching, but slowly. So Janeway has Seven meet her in the Brig to... Are the scans performed slowly ? To me this, Scans show another ship is slowly approaching., sounds better. It also looks that the only reason Seven and Janeway start the interrogation is because of the approaching vessel. Is is not because they have captured a Borg drone ? Is the article correct, aka grammer etc.., as it is or is it just me ? -- Q 18:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC) ::As someone whose French grammar is - I am certain - insondable, but who has an undergraduate degree in English, let me provide some opinions. "Encroaching" can be used with both persons and things. "Hitting" can refer to using hands or firing shots from a phaser. There could be a referral as to who fired the I-MOD, but I thought it implied from who called it an I-MOD - no problem and nothing wrong with being clear about it, though. "That they start" is acceptable, although "to" is acceptable as well. You are right about the implication that once they figure out who the aliens are that the repairs will stop, but I know that is not the intent of the sentence. The "but slowly" is okay as a reference to the ship rather than the scan, however your rephrasing of it is also okay. Broadly speaking, I believe the article is correct as to grammar - but as with most questions of language, it is nothing but an opinion. Hope that helps! Aholland 19:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC) ::Off course it helps :) I still find the article not that easy to read, some sentences needs re-reading before it is clear what is happening. In my opinion sentences should be straightforward and clear from start to finish. I also think some commas can be removed. I do wonder why in the captains log there are non-italicized words (maybe to let them stand out from the crowed ?) while as per MA MoS, quotations need to be italicized in its entirety. -- Q 18:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC) :::My guess is that the words that are not italicized within the italics are, themselves, italicized in the actual comic book. The convention in English is that if you italicize a quote that, itself, has italics in it you reverse the emphasis such that the originally italicized words are now in a normal typeface. The MA convention applies to the spoken word (like from a movie), rather than a textual quote from a comic or book. Does that make sense or did I just confuse things further? Aholland 19:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC) ::: It makes sense. I just was curious what it was about. -- Q 19:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC) ::Your guess is accurate Aholland. In the comic it's in italics and bolded, so I figured I'd better show it's importance somehow on here. - AJ Halliwell 19:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC) * Archived. Received 2 supports and no opposed, but failed to meet requirement of at least 5 votes after (longer than) 10 days. - AJ Halliwell 06:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC) Romulan history A really good read! I think it fits all the criteria for featured status. --Defiant 16:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC) :Comment -- it seems to me that it could use some 'see also' bits to other history articles perhaps. -- Sulfur 17:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC) ::Comment -- I didn't peer review the article, because I'm not willing and too busy to make much changes to it myself but I think it's a good candidate. --Defiant 17:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC) :Mild oppose. The article lacks some obvious links and I don't think the writing is up to par. The sections on the Awakening could be expanded, and there is no mention on the Underground/Re-unification movement during the 24th century. Logan 5 23:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC) ::Oppose. Agree completely with the above statements, especially regarding the re-unification movement. I also believe many of the points could be expanded with additional detail. -- Dmsdbo 23:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC) ::Oppose. The writing is very disjointed and does not flow well, particularly with the ancient history section. It also has an odd POV, with statements like "as yet unnamed" and "it is believed that", which are not the preferred style for in-universe articles. There is also speculation throughout the article, such as "presumably leading", or "later named" or "presumably under Romulan rule". It has typos such as "it's" instead of "its", and a couple of AD notations after years instead of before them (the latter of which I fixed). At least one semicolon is misused (first sentence, 24th Century), and plural possessives are noted as single possessive (neighbor's instead of neighbors'). All in all, it needs a good editorial scrub in my opinion. Aholland 04:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC) * Archived. --Alan del Beccio 22:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC) Dukat's Bird-of-Prey (04/25/06 The user did quite a good job with this. Thorough, accurate with good images. -- Rebel Strike 21:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC) * Support. I think it's a well written article. I like it. :) Sloan47 03:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC) * Support. There was just the bit about what the name of the ship is, but I think that's been resolved now. Plenty of pictures and information. Zsingaya 15:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC) *'Oppose' while the naming issue is still being discussed. Once that is resolved, the article should be edited accordingly to either use the name throughout or not at all, not the mishmash of "Naprem" and "Dukat's Bird-of-Prey" that exists now. -- Cid Highwind 16:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC) **'Neutral' I withdraw my support for the time-being, as Cid said, the naming issue is still unresolved, and there appears to be a little editing war going on between Vedek and Shran. Get it sorted, guys! Zsingaya 16:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC) *'Support' - a nice article -- When it rains... it pours 16:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC) *'Support' - A good article with good content and visuals. -- Excelsior 20:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC) *For the record, the naming issue has been resolved, and I vote in support of this article. There's a lotta unsightly red links in it, but we can take care of those later. ;) --From Andoria with Love 05:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC) *'Oppose'. The "Fighting the Klingons" section has only one sentace. This should either be expanded or merged into another section. Jaz talk | novels 05:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC) More Tribbles, More Troubles (03/07/06) I'll be the first to admit this page isn't completely up to par with some previous featured articles, but its about time we have a TAS episode. It well written, has good pictures, and some background picture. Jaz talk | novels 02:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC) :*'Comment'. It needs a couple more pictures IMO, and more background if at all possible. Appropriate summary though. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 19:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC) ::*'Comment'. I agree with the Vedek. Is there an animated picture of a tribble somewhere? Apart from that, its a good size summary, not too long or too short, in my opinion. Good job everyone! Zsingaya ''Talk'' 20:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC) :*'Comment'. The summary here is a good length, but it contains none of the Act separators that other episodes do. I don't know if that applies to TAS eps or not, but it's worth having the discussion to determine before we put this up for FA. If it turns out there is enough info to divide into Acts then we should do that first before making this FA and then having to make major changes later. Aside from that I'm neutral on this, but I do wonder if there might be better TAS episodes/articles. Something with more background or meta-information would be my preference. Or even, though it needs work, the main page for TAS itself. Logan 5 22:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC) ::*Actually, there may be a majority of episodes with act-by-act breakdowns, but a lot of episodes (especially the ones featured a month or two ago) have shorter, simpler summaries. I think the community kind of backed down on that issue without making a decision about which is "right". And I'd love to see a series page featured but it would have to impress my pants off before I'd set that precedent. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 00:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC) :*'Oppose'. The summary is of sufficient length, though I would suggest to break it down in sections. More images are required, as well as a more extensive background information section. Ottens 12:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Nova class (Second Failed Nomination, 03/07/06) *The Nova-class article was a nominee a few months ago, but was deemed a page that required a clean-up, especially with tenses. Over these past few months, the article has been improved, tenses fixed, and all available information has been included (including the recent addition of the Battle of Procyon V information). I see no further information that can be included, as all the facts and obsverations on the Nova from Equinox, Equinox, Part II and Endgame have been picked clean. I see this as a worthy addition as a featured article, especially since the amount of information on this class is extensive compared to the number of times it has been seen. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 16:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC) :*'Comment.' It is a nice and informative article, but it does not have a whole lot of specific information (probably because it did not appear in many episodes). Also, the pictures provided are not very clear because of damage to the ship (I know that the Equinox was one of the only Nova class vessles primarily occuring in an episode). Also, there is nothing extroidenary about it, even though it does have nice content. I'm not sure as of right now whether to support it or not. Anybody else have any thoughts? --Galaxy001 01:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC) :*'Comment.' Although I have to say I did a lot of work on the rewrite, it still seems like there are too many sections in it or something. --Alan del Beccio 01:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC) :*'Comment.' It's been re-worked some since its last nomination, but my thoughts are still much the same: while informative it seems too limited, and most of the sub-sections are just one or two sentences and very general, which makes me question the need for them at all. And compared to other ship-classes that have been made FA, this one is lean to say the least. To my mind it still falls into the "really good" class, but maybe not FA. Logan 5 14:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC) :*'Comment.' - As per various suggestions, and a personal reobservation of the minor notes in the Nova page, I have merged and/or deleted information that is not required. I deleted Command Systems and the majority of Propulsion System (as much of that is explained in either Physical Arrangement or Main Engineering) and have merged a great amount of information to prevent few sentence sections. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 04:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC) :*'Comment'. Good job, but even despite the low number of appearances, i think we can do a lot better than "it was a ship in service during the 24th century" for a lead-in. ;) --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 19:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC) *'Support'. Okay people, stop commenting and start voting. Weyoun 19:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC) :*Unfortunately, if this nomination needs votes for a decision, mine must be oppose. I still don't feel that this article presents as much info as it tries, or appears to do with its organization and content. --Logan 5 19:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC) Pah-wraith (03/07/06) This is a comprehensive enough article, and I really like the way the pictures on the side look. It's not the longest article, but it's definitely better than a one-episode character (no offense) and covers - I think - everything we canonically know about them. Weyoun 19:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC) *'Oppose'. Very incomplete. This article does not contain any information after The Changing Face of Evil, and does not have a single mention of Dukat and Sisko's confrontation in the Fire Caves. Jaz talk | novels 00:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC) *'Oppose'. There is no information about how they were released, how they chose Dukat as their emissary over Winn, and the episodes under "other references" need to have info from them put into the main artice. ~Starchild |<''Talk''> 19:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC) **'Oppose, for now' This could possibly do with a peer review, or perhaps just some more work on the points that have been raised. I added those pictures a while back, and it seems like not much has changed since. The additional references at the end will probably be worth investigating, to see what reference to the Pah-wraiths they have in them. Its a good start, and I'm glad you brought it up, Weyoun. Zsingaya ''Talk'' 17:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Relativity (2/20/06) I know I did an extensive rewrite on this, but I believe that it is quite comprehensive and should be a featured article. --Galaxy001 03:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC) *'Mild oppose' for now. It's a good start but the act dividers should be labeled as acts in addition to the dates, and the later acts are WAY shorter than the first. They should be redone to make them closer to the same length. I also think the background and quotes could be extended a little. --Logan 5 17:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Endgame (1/19/06) I believe that Endgame should be a featured article. It contains discriptive information, good section divisions, and exceptional formatting. It also has a good list of famous quotes. --Galaxy001 03:12, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC) * Comment. I don't think the connection between the Chakotay/Seven relationship and Enterprise/Nemesis is established - is there any at all? It should also be explained why the relationship would be out of place, as people such as myself who aren't familiar with Seven and Chakotay's prior interaction will wonder what the deal is. I would like to see some mention of a couple other things as well, namely the backlash from the episode (I haven't seen it but have heard it called the weakest finale quite often) and the questionably selfish motives Janeway has given the way she is so gung-ho about the Prime Directive and such. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 03:43, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC) * Conditional support. If someone pimps it out the way we saw happen with Emissary (episode) and Trials and Tribble-ations (e.g. going "all-out" with the background; see either of those pages for what I mean) I'd wholeheartedly support it. This is worthy a Wikipedia:Template:GA at least. Weyoun 14:48, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Comment'. Yah, I see what you mean. I'll see what I can do. --Galaxy001 05:38, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Mild support'. Its a great article, theres nothing that stands out as needing improvement, but its nothing phenominal or unique. I geuss I will support this, but not that enthusiastically. Jaz 05:45, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Archived' -- <10 days , no consensus. --Alan del Beccio 05:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)